Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0816 Clifford L. Whitaker, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents, vs. 3M Company, Appellant. Filed April 28, 2009 Reversed and remanded Hudson, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-C4-04-012239 Susan M. Coler, Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, 310 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415; and Michael D. Lieder, 1400 Eye Street Northwest, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005 (pro hac vice) (for respondents) Thomas Tinkham, Paul B. Klaas, Holly S. A. Eng, Ryan E. Mick, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1498 (for appellant) Samuel L. Hanson, Diane B. Bratvold, Gregory J. Stenmoe, Elizabeth M. Brama, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., 2200 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2157 (for amici curiae Alliant Techsystems, Inc.; Cargill, Inc.; C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; Medtronic, Inc.; Nash Finch Company; Supervalu, Inc.; Target Corporation; and The Mosaic Company) David F. Herr, Haley N. Schaffer, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brandt, LLP, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4140 (for amicus curiae Minnesota Chamber of Commerce)

Steven Andrew Smith, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (for amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association, Minnesota Chapter, and The Impact Fund) Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. This court reviews a district court`s decision granting or denying class

certification for abuse of discretion; an erroneous application of Minn. R. Civ. P. 23 constitutes an abuse of discretion. 2. Parties moving for certification of a class pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 23

have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the certification requirements of rule 23 have been met. 3. A district court deciding a motion for class certification under Minn. R.

Civ. P. 23 must resolve factual disputes relevant to class-certification requirements, including relevant expert disputes, but factual findings by the district court on class certification are not binding on the ultimate trier of fact. OPINION HUDSON, Judge Appellant 3M Company challenges the district court`s certification of a class of more than 4,900 current and former 3M employees in this age-discrimination action brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat.

Download A08-816, Clifford L. Whitaker, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others si

Minnesota Law